Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSix ways McCain could still win:
6. Thirty million young, first-time voters oversleep, forget to go to polls on Nov. 4.
5. Sarah Palin reveals secret past as Rhodes Scholar; admits "hockey mom" thing was just a ruse -- to avoid being called an "elitist."
4. Economic collapse ends, Dow hits new high. Mortage lenders that foreclosed on new homeowners say "never mind."
3. Al Qaeda throws in the towel, Osama turns himself in at the gates of Gitmo -- Bush declares "Mission Accomplished."
2. Jesus appears in Washington, D.C., urges Americans to vote the McCain-Palin ticket.
. . . and the number one way McCain could still win:
Supreme Court in 5-4 ruling declares McCain president.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Left out massive voter fraud
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 11:06am
6) The American people wake up and realize what's important
5) Saturday Night Live actually makes fun and attacks Obama
4) Stock Market plunge is attributed to George Soros
3) Osama is killed
2) Obama is declared to NOT be the Messiah
1) The Supreme Court stops the Florida Dems from Stealing election.
Posted by abell12ct at 10/28/2008 @ 11:08am
You forgot Number 7!
7. George W. Bush breaks with his party and endorses Barack Obama.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2008 @ 11:15am
I declare Obama is NOT the messiah!
Does that work for you abel? You do realize it was the repugnants who gave him that title. Wow, do you think SNL has that much sway?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 11:15am
Posted by abell12ct at 10/28/2008 @ 11:08am
So Abel is SNL the reason Ross Perot lost too?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 11:17am
One you forgot:
7. The electronic voting machines are tampered with again as in Ohio in 2008, by the Republican right wing Christain extremists who control them.
Posted by lltrix at 10/28/2008 @ 11:26am
It is not just SNL. It is the 90% of the entire media. When this is all over and the Dems have control over the Executive and Legislative Branch of government, the Dems should hold a huge congragulatory party for the liberal elite media in this country. They are more than anything or anybody will have been responsible for allowing the most liberal candidate in American History to get elected President. I wonder if they will take any blame when and if things go wrong? I doubt it.
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/2008 @ 11:27am
Laslty: Use the District Attorney's to file cases against as many Democrats as possible to pull their vote into question of legitimacy.
Posted by pintonwest at 10/28/2008 @ 11:38am
Ha! Take blame if things go wrong? Why? Because the other team is so great at that? You must be joking, its the only explanation for such a ridiculous comment.
Posted by av at 10/28/2008 @ 11:41am
Posted by pintonwest at 10/28/2008 @ 11:38am
I guess you are forgetting that nearly all District Attorneys in urban and suburban areas are DEMOCRATS!!!
DAs are political animals that want to rise to the next level, and therefore the astute ones see their fortunes rising with their support of Obama and falling by helping the Republicans.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2008 @ 11:46am
I declare Obama is NOT the messiah!
Posted by Extraneous
Be careful what you say about "The One"
Posted by abell12ct at 10/28/2008 @ 11:50am
Millions of people are not convinced by Obama's message folks. Most of you only interact with other liberals. I think many of you wouldn't even think of befriending a conservative.
But the US is still a pretty conservative country, despite what we read here. I think most of you cannot empathise in any way to someone who leads a life guided by Christ and the Bible. Many of you do not own businesses or have payroll responsibilities.
You simply discount the fact that not everyone sees Obama's message as "unifying." You can't even comprehend it. The MSM is already assuming his victory, and , as a result, so are you.
If Obama loses, you will not have any retrospective on his message. You will be outraged. You will claim that the game was rigged. That someone cheated. You won't even consider that Obama's collectivist message still doesn't resonate with the "production class" of the US, which for the time-being outnumbers the "dependent class".
If Obama wins, it will probably not be a mandate, any more than Bush's victories were.
I wish you'd all listen to Obama. To his credit, he knows this isn't over. so should all of you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:54am
Len Mosse
I assume your worries of a democratic presidency are based on the fact that you earn over 250k per year. Maybe you should plan on changing your nick to Lean Moose.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 11:55am
I guess ABELL and LEN are going with the
"The liberal Media is what got Obama elected" excuse.
Well...it'd be popular.
Of course the FUN ones will be the McCain/non-RR Repubs blaming Palin...and the Paliniacs blaming McCain not being pure enough...and we might even get a few Repubs who'll could consider the possibility that BUSH might be at fault.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:55am
"I think most of you cannot empathise in any way to someone who leads a life guided by Christ and the Bible."----Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:54am
FREI, two questions...
1. Do "most of us" empathisise in some way with to....Barack Obama?
2. What do YOU believe Barack Obama's religious beliefs entail?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/2008 @ 11:27am
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:55am
Is this the same "liberal" media that helped push the US into a war frenzy, airing 90% pro and 10% anti-war sentiment? The same "liberal" media that led to the termination of Phil Donahue and Bill Maher?
Wake up and realize that the corporate owned media will push whatever policies and politicians their handlers pay them to push.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:06pm
I think most of you cannot empathise in any way to someone who leads a life guided by Christ and the Bible. Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:54am
Did someone leave some "Holier-Than-Thou" sitting out too long on the counter? Something stinks in here.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12:14pm
HAL, the "Liberal Media" "power" seems to come in waves of unpredictable frequency according to our right-wing friends....
it has the power to "get Obama elected" in 2008....
but didn't have that power in 2004 to get Kerry elected?!?!!
OR maybe it's the Republicans who have the problem with consistancy....somehow they can repel the power of the "Liberal Media" in 2004 with Dubya....but are unable to in 2008 with McCain?!??!!???
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:16pm
#6 Thirty million young voters oversleep. That isn't as far fetched as it sounds. McCain recently said "Acorn may be a threat to the very foundation of democracy", (i.e. those poor unwashed masses can't really know how to vote). How can we allow people who don't make at least a million dollars a month on Wall street vote. Plutocracy anyone?
Posted by lachatte at 10/28/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12
I think FREI has realized the box he put himself into with that little blurb stuck in there.
Does he now claim that "most of us" somehow aren't empathizing with Obama...
or that Obama isn't "a real Christian"?!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:18pm
There's always a chance the racist population will be able to swing the election to McCain. It's easy to forget the older generation who were a part of radical racism of the past are the bulk of the voters.
Posted by Margie_Miller1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:18pm
Mask, my point is, right or wrong, millions of American voters are Christians whose lives are led by the Bible. Obama is pro-abortion. His SCOTUS appointees will also be very liberal. That stance disqualifies him for their votes. Furthermore, he is a darling of the secular media and endorsed by countless liberals in the public eye. Don't discount the impact of the very real culture war on this election.
Think about that while you're all in your little premature victory mosh pit here at The Nation.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:25pm
You won't even consider that Obama's collectivist message still doesn't resonate with the "production class" of the US, which for the time-being outnumbers the "dependent class". Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:54am
I guess now Liberals are all part of the "dependent class" and only christ luvin bible poundin neo-cons actually work for a living or own a business.
I'm your worst nightmare then. A Socialistic Atheist who owns a business and works over 50 hours a week at a regular job. Sorry to pop your bubble of superiority.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12:27pm
Mask, Chaoszen, where do I once say I am holier than thou?
Let me say again, I believe that a lot of those on the left do not empathize well with people who lead a life guided by the teachings of the Bible. Didn't say "all", nor am I saying I lead my life that way. I am saying you are discounting that block. Those people VOTE with very strong conviction - and I contend there's more of them than you think. I don't think they poll well. I believe they will be the difference in this election.
So while you all circle jerk and chuckle over the hilarious ways McCain can still win, I think you would be better served keeping your eye on the ball.
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:34pm
I assume your worries of a democratic presidency are based on the fact that you earn over 250k per year. Maybe you should plan on changing your nick to Lean Moose.
Changing my name might be appropriate, but if you raise my income tax and continue to ask me to pay high business taxes, I may be forced to lay off some of the people who currently work for me and unfortunatly that will mean that a lot more people will be "lean".
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/2008 @ 12:38pm
"I'm your worst nightmare then. A Socialistic Atheist who owns a business and works over 50 hours a week at a regular job. Sorry to pop your bubble of superiority"
Worst nightmare? Hardly Chaoszen. I feel priviledged to trade opinions with you here. I really don't believe myself superior to you at all.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:39pm
"Obama is pro-abortion"
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:25pm
Obama is Pro Choice. You are anti-choice.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12:27pm
Atheists unite! Isn't it amazing that so-called godless liberals like you and I have more interest in social justice than the people who claim it as a pillar of their dogma?
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:41pm
"So while you all circle jerk and chuckle over the hilarious ways McCain can still win"
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:34pm
None of these possibilites is hilarious. Quite the opposite.
As a side note, I jerk off alone.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:48pm
Hal, Just so we're being honest, I am against government involvement at all in the issue of abortion. I believe it is the personal choice of the woman and government has no place in that decision, pro or con. Abortion should be a legal private sector enterprise, regulated by government only as a safe medical practice. Period.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:54pm
As a side note, I jerk off alone.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:48pm
Well that answers my question.
Posted by k330k at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:34pm
Sorry, FREI, you don't get to go back and just "change" what you "really meant"....allow me to quote (again)-
"I think most of you cannot empathise in any way to someone who leads a life guided by Christ and the Bible."----Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:54am
Now....for that statement to be true, in the context you apply it, only two possibilities-
1. Obama is NOT "someone who leads a life guided by Christ and the Bible"
or 2. "most of us" do not empathise with a self-declared Christian like Barack Obama.
Which is it?
(Oh, and if # 1...please explain why you are now the Judge of who is or isn't a "real Christian")
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:54pm
Do your opinions always seem to change direction with the hot air of discourse?
It reminds me of fruit flys, who seem to appear out of nowhere and are difficult to swat because they are constantly changing directions.
Like when you use the words pro-abortion. Most anyone who believes that abortion is a matter of privacy and choice calls it pro-choice. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:54pm
I stand corrected. Why then do you use the term "pro-abortion"?
"Well that answers my question."
Posted by k330k at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm
glad to help out. now get back in the circle.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/08@12:38pm
You've just demonstrated the kind of security you offer your employees. A reasonable employer would at the very least spread "hurt" around in a somewhat equitable manner. A good employee is hard to find. All you'll be accomplishing with layoffs is damaging yourself.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 1:44pm
Miscellaneous comments
1. MY GENERAL COMMENT: Those of you on the left are phobic beyond belief that this election will be "stolen". You really have never gotten over the 2000 election and have never proven it was "stolen" (impossible since it was not).
2. freiheit1 says: "If Obama wins, it will probably not be a mandate, any more than Bush's victories were. " and then also says "I wish you'd all listen to Obama. To his credit, he knows this isn't over. so should all of you."
MY COMMENT to Item 2: If Obama wins, even by one vote, the media and the left will declare it a mandate and Matt Rothschild over on The Progressive will no doubt say that everybody in the U.S. voted for Obama........ also, freiheit1 says we should listen to Obama...what has Obama ever said worth listening to?
3. Here is an excerpt of some discourse:
=================
"Obama is pro-abortion"
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:25pm
Obama is Pro Choice. You are anti-choice.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12:27pm
Atheists unite! Isn't it amazing that so-called godless liberals like you and I have more interest in social justice than the people who claim it as a pillar of their dogma?
Posted by HAL9000
Like when you use the words pro-abortion. Most anyone who believes that abortion is a matter of privacy and choice calls it pro-choice. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.
Posted by chaoszen
=====================
MY COMMENT for Item 3: Obama is both pro-abortion and anti-choice. Obama is about the biggest defender of abortion, from his legislative record, there is. And Obama opposes letting the unborn baby have a say it's own fate. The unborn baby has no choice, with Obama.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:45pm
SJ, who is the "pro-life" political party?
Wait....before you say "The Republican Party", answer...then why didn't they pass the "Human Life Amendment" out of Congress when they controlled it from 2003-2006?
and wait again...if you're thinking about saying "Neither" (which is the right answer)....then BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION....both parties are "pro-abortion", aren't they and folks like you have been fooled by the GOP for years into thinking they REALLY DO want to overturn Roe and outlaw abortion.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:50pm
Maskdelta,
Your post is a load of convoluted B.S. (about the G.O.P. being pro-abortion)
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 2:11pm
glad to help out. now get back in the circle.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
LOL.
Posted by k330k at 10/28/2008 @ 2:26pm
Did someone leave some "Holier-Than-Thou" sitting out too long on the counter? Something stinks in here.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/28/2008 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Absolutely Beautiful! LOL
Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 2:34pm
Obama is pro-abortion.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008
I recall when abortion was illegial. It did not stem the tide of abortions. In fact there more deaths due to lower income women going to back room abortionists. Some people who can afford to send their daughters to foriegn countries for abortions. My 27+ years of marriage has convinced me that a woman is going to do whatever she likes when it comes to her body. The whole abortion debate is no different than prohabition was so long ago.
Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 2:43pm
SJ, as for your first comment, I don't see how anyone with even rudimentary critical thinking skills can look at the 2000 election in Florida and come to any conclusion other than that the election was stolen. A statewide recount of overvotes and undervotes determined that more votes were cast for Gore, regardless of whether narrow or broad criteria for ballot acceptance were used. The most convincing analysis I've read has Gore having won the state by some 50,000 votes. And just because the Supreme Court ruled, bizarrely, that an arbitrary administrative deadline trumped the right of voters to have their votes counted, that doesn't mean that those of us who care about democracy shouldn't be outraged at that decision.
Posted by richcarl at 10/28/2008 @ 3:00pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 2:11pm
No, it's simple logic. To prove that...answer my questions-
1. Which is the "pro-life" political party?
2. Why did the GOP in control of BOTH Houses of Congress not even put up the "Human Life Amendment" for a vote (but kept it in Committee where it's been since "Roe")?
3. If a political party is not actively trying to stop abortion....isn't it fair to say it's helping to FACILITATE it remaining legal?
4. If a political party is facilitating keeping abortion legal (perhaps, say for political reasons, despite their RHETORIC on the issue. Perhaps because they know the public is pro-choice and they (the political party) will get PUNISHED if they do something to try to outlaw abortion)....are they not essentially "pro-choice"?
5. In your view, isn't "pro-choice" "pro-abortion"?
6. Do you trust everything a Republican politician tells you....even on abortion?
Answer the question and show me the "convoluted B.S. "?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 3:03pm
BTW, I should note this theory opposes what many on the LEFT think as well....
See, I believe despite their big TALK on abortion, the head honchos at the RNC know that "overturning Roe" is just red meat to their gullible SJCHER/LVLIB/PONTI base....
and that if they REALLY DID something to make abortion illegal (like trying to pass the "Human Life Amendment"...which they were perfectly capable of doing between 2003-2006)....
they'd get their asses handed to them worse than 2006 or than 2008 is shaping up to be. There's no majority support for banning abortion...but that's exactly what most Repubs PROMISE guys like SJ every 2-4 years...and he laps it up.
It also gives the Dems something to fight against, which helps their chances.
But neither party REALLY wants to see Roe overturned....it's just the GOP has to TELL THAT to a certain percentage of their naive base.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 3:08pm
Maskdelta,
Your convolution is that you are joking if you think a Human Life Amendment could have successfully gotten through Congress and then into review by all of the states with enough states voting to successfully passing the amendment. The GOP may have been in control of both houses of Congress for a certain length of time but did the GOP have enough control to ram anything it wanted through Congress?
And would all GOP members of Congress have been in favor of this? There are probably a few "pro-choice(pro-abortion)" GOP members just like there are some pro-life Democrats.
And then what would have happened even if all the pieces fell into place and this became an amendment to the Constitution? How long would it have stayed? Would the Supreme Court have declared it unconstitutional? Don't forget, it was the judges who decided, based on a real loose interpretation of privacy rights, to allow abortion through Roe v. Wade. (which even some "pro-choice" legal scholars now admit was bad law).
I am not sure the makeup of the court now is such that the judges would not take action to continue abortion. There needs to be at least one more constructionist judge, which is why Obama should not be elected, because he, of course, will put an activist judge on the bench if given a chance.
So your convolution is that you took none of this into consideration.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:14pm
Well, first...
"How long would it have stayed? Would the Supreme Court have declared it unconstitutional?"----Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:14pm |
I realize you may be unfamiliar with the Constitution (as a rabid Bush supporter...heheh)...but ...
once a Constitutional Amendment has been passed....it's "Constitutional" and the Supreme Court can't declare it unconstitutional, despite what Limbaugh has convinced you on the powers of the USSC.
Second....glad you admit that there aren't enough Republicans OR enough states that have the same view on abortion as you do.
If you're willing to admit you're in the minority on abortion, then we agree.
But it kind of makes your attacks on "pro-abortion" folks who are "pro-choice" silly...since you include a majority of Americans as "pro-abortion"....by your own vote count!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 3:23pm
I believe that a lot of those on the left do not empathize well with people who lead a life guided by the teachings of the Bible. Posted by freiheit1 at 10/28/2008 @ 12:34pm
The only stances that the right has to leading a life guided by the bible are the anti-abortion and anti-gay issues, other than that most on the left are much more in tune with the teachings of Christ than those on the right. How is it that pre-emptive war is a Christian value, where does Jesus say, better get them before they get us? Jesus was much like a community organizer who looked out for the needs of the poor, where do most conservatives stand on the issue of welfare or childcare and taking care of the needy? As for gays, Christ welcomed everyone and only those without sin can cast the first stone. I just think that the right claims rightousness while haveing none. What did Jesus say again about a camel going through the eye of a needle? And why are conservatives so opposed to increaed taxes? Leading a life guided by the bible, my @ss.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 3:27pm
Maskdelta,
I do not admit to being in a minority on abortion. I do not remember it coming up for any vote nationwide. (It of course has not).
You know full well that the views of members of both parties are not 100% uniform. That there are "pro-choice" Republicans AND "pro-life" DEMOCRATS.
No, I do not have a list and no I am not going to look it up, for your amusement. I remember the late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania (pro-life and Democrat) wanted to speak on the subject at a Democratic convention years ago, but was not allowed to.
So, my point was, there was no real chance of getting something through Congress like that anyway because the Repbulicans are not 100% pro-life, and did not have a big enough majority with enough pro-life Republicans to just impose the start of the constitutional amendment process (proposed amendment to be voted on by the states). You would have to get past a filibuster proof majority, and the Republicans did not have that.
As I said, because there are pro-life Democrats, my statement that there are some "pro-choice" Republicans in no way admits or even implies what the vote would be it it came to a vote nationwide.
What it seems that you are saying is that Republicans really do not want to repeal Roe v Wade, because they could have done so, and did not. You have presented this whopper before on this website.
I have pointed out above and in my earlier posts today that the Republicans did not have enough clout to do this. What would help is another constructist judge and then to have a case before the Supreme Court where Roe v Wade is invalidated. Then it would be up to the people to decide, instead of activist judges making law from the bench.
Arguing with you, Maskdelta, is like being in a 3 ring circus!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:36pm
"5. Sarah Palin reveals secret past as Rhodes Scholar; admits "hockey mom" thing was just a ruse -- to avoid being called an 'elitist.'"
It's funny this should come up. A few months ago I posted elsewhere with a similar thought.
Did you know she was going to take a clerkship at the Supreme Court when she was 25, but the salmon run in Bristol Bay was unusually large that year, and decided against it.
Posted by el_barto at 10/28/2008 @ 3:43pm
Extraneous,
You ask "where do most conservatives stand on the issue of welfare or childcare and taking care of the needy?
and...
And why are conservatives so opposed to increaed taxes? "
An article was publised some time ago by a professor from Syracuse University showing conservatives give more to charity.
Conservatives are in favor of helping the poor and the needy by improving education, and promoting opportunity for people, and encouring people to be the best they can be, so they become self-sufficient and can live their lives with dignity, and are no longer needy or poor.
Liberals are in favor of policies that have destroyed public education in some areas, which was supposed to be the great equalizer in this country and give all people a chance at a better life. Liberals then promote class warfare, telling people that life is lousy and they have been shafted and wronged, and to vote Democrat and everything will be fixed by taking from the wealthy and handing them what they have been shafted out of. (through raising taxes). This helps create bitter and angry people, instead of people trying to take available help and using it to improve their lives.
Conservatives are opposed to raising taxes, because taking from the wealthy does not help the poor, but instead slows job growth and economic output, which means fewer jobs for those who need them. So taxing the wealthy hurts the poor. (By the way, the wealthy pay most of the tax now- look it up at www.irs.gov - crunch the numbers yourself to see this).
So there are economic considerations to the question, not just Biblical.
It is not a good idea to try and guess whether Jesus was Republican or Democrat, but I doubt Jesus would favor liberal ideas that hurt the poor, rather than help.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:48pm
And why are conservatives so opposed to increaed taxes? Leading a life guided by the bible, my @ss.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 3:27pm
I never understood that myself. I guess they think people will abuse the system. I personally am not opposed to paying a little more in taxes if it means helping children and the poor. Some believe that the money will be wasted. The fact is, a very small percentage of people abuse the system. The media tends to over generalize when abuse is uncovered. I think that if conservatives looked up the meaning of the word conservative and liberal they would be embarrased, or at least should be.
Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 3:49pm
Truthman,
You said "Some believe that the money will be wasted. The fact is, a very small percentage of people abuse the system."
There is a consideration separate from abuse.
Whenver the government does anything, it does it in an extremely inefficent manner. There are functions that only the government can perform, but it is better to keep them to a minimum.
I worked for the government and also in private industry, and when you compare something done at work when working for the government with the same type of function in private industry, the difference is like night and day.
The government effort consists of probably at least double the amount of effort, which consists of extra and unnecessary paper shuffling, coordination, navigating through levels of bureauacracy that add no value to the effort, etc. Except now with computers, some of the paper shuffling is replaced with unnecessary emailing and mouse clicking.
All of which results in a tremendous amount of money and resources going right down the toilet. And providing no help to the poor.
To say nothing of paying some government workers who elect not to work or work less efficiently than in the private sector, yet get their pay raise every year and never lose their jobs. (Yes, plenty government workers work very hard and do an honest day's work, but some do not, and do not have to)
No price tag has every been put on this, but asking people to throw more money down the toilet, money that will not help the poor but only feed the government bureauacracy, is wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 4:08pm
It is not a good idea to try and guess whether Jesus was Republican or Democrat, but I doubt Jesus would favor liberal ideas that hurt the poor, rather than help.----Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:48pm
LOL...ya gotta love the disengenuousness of a Rightie like SJCHER....
"I'm not saying Jesus was a Republican, but he sure wouldn't favor liberalism!"
If the guy would just openly say "Hell, yeah, Jesus would be a Republican"...he'd atleast be HONEST!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:15pm
BTW, # 7 way that McCain could still win?
9/11 Truthers believe Palin in her call for a new 9/11 investigation!
www.prisonplanet.com
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 4:08pm |
I'll take government bureaucracy over big business plutocracy every time. The health & well being of the nation win every time over a well publicized "donation" to someone's pet charity from some ego aggrandizing swell.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 4:40pm
(By the way, the wealthy pay most of the tax now- look it up at www.irs.gov - crunch the numbers yourself to see this).
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:48pm
Of course they pay most of the taxes! The top 20% contols 85% of the all the wealth in the US. Look it up if you don't believe me.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
My main point is that it seems the conservatives have claimed a monopoly on Christian values and this is patently false. Yes, giving to charity is a good tax right off and the wealthy give more because they have more to give. But charities only make a small dent when providing for the needs of the poor, what about medicaid, social security, etc. Conservatives are against a comprehensive healthcare plan that would provide benfits to many who need them. My aunt retired a few years ago from teaching, she moved states and is no longer covered by her old healthcare, she had breast cancer and since that is a pre-existing condition is now uninsureable until she qualifies for medicaid. If her cancer were to come back she and her family would likely be bankrupted. Which charity should I send her too?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 4:48pm
Progressives are deeply religious faithbased folks who recognize the profound greatness of God and who know that only He can decide on matters of life and death and therefore who know to pray for his will, pray not to interfere with his will, and therefore who know deep in their hearts the importance of the separation of church and state in all areas, none excluded, not war, guns, drugs, taxes or abortion, yes, progressives being deeply embedded in the Word, step aside and let God move as He wills in all matters of life and death. Republican neocons are immature narcissists who experience themselves and chosen channels of God, believe only they have the power of interpreting His will and imposing His will in all areas of life, war, guns, drugs, taxes and abortion - who claim in their ignorance that free will as God willed it should be subjugated to their claim to know God's will, but God's will is free will for all. Even those they can't admit to hate.
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 5:01pm
Yep Extraneous, they also claim to OWN:
Liberty, courage, rugged individualism, victory, Truth (listen to Limbaugh, this is his primary delusion)...
Gets them in all sorts of conundrums, which the likes of Jon Stewart pops all night like huge balloons...
Brown people hate liberty, that's why we can't let 'em vote
Brown people are children of God, that's why we invaded, occupy and now won't leave their country
Democrats are children of God, that's why they're unAmerican
LV believes in earning his own way, that's why he tricks his herd into coughing up 10% of their earnings -- MORE in real terms than ol' tax n spend dems take 'em for!
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by Len Mosse at 10/28/08@12:38pm
You've just demonstrated the kind of security you offer your employees. A reasonable employer would at the very least spread "hurt" around in a somewhat equitable manner. A good employee is hard to find. All you'll be accomplishing with layoffs is damaging yourself.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 1:44pm
You see Len. Sorelish thinks you are a bad employer because you would not put employees ahead of your own family. Why don't you and your family live in your car so you can hire a couple more people?
You don't have to feed your kids every day. With the money you save, you could give at least 2 employees free dental care.
You sure are selfish, thinking of your own family instead of putting your employees first.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:12pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:12pm
LVLIB, if you're an employer and have no family...can you just think about yourself over your employees?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:12pm
If he goes broke, surely your church will respond with a box of food & everything will be alright! Make sure he understands that under no circumstances is he to is he to approach the govt for help! Remember the Prince of Peace said something about caring for the least among us & I know that you will point to the fact that no explicit guidelines are laid out as to just HOW MUCH we should care. On second thought just give him directions to the nearest employment agency & forget the box of food.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 8:32pm
1- Candy popular with Hispanic kids found to have absurd amounts of lead and to cause lead poisoning in Hispanic kids who ate the candy.
2- Los Angeles city attorney and the state attorney general demands that the candy makers eradicate lead from their factories and label any candies that contain the substance.
3- The candy manufacturers argued that the lead levels weren't high enough to warrant concern.
4- These corporation owners rightfully care more about their adorable white families OR themselves if there's no adorable white family.
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 10:36pm
Oh, but you forget the BEST part of a LVLIB "pre-1933 when everything went to hell with that damn Commie Roosevelt" return to the Golden Age....
in LL's Dream Libertarian Los Angeles, there wouldn't be any Federal FDA to interfere with the business practices of that candy corporation and they could use their cash (with no "1st Amendment destroying campaign finance reform") to make sure that ONLY candidates who supported the corporation were awash in cash during the elections...
thus stopping the LA city attorney and State Attorney General from even MAKING any demands of the CandyCo.
And LL just can't understand how us Marxists wouldn't see the benefits of that!
or why folks think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" isn't obviously a Stalinist fantasy and the meat packing plants were "just fine" under local control?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 10:42pm
Mask, the State attorney needs to file a "2ez barrel injunction" to prevent you from shooting little LV fishies!
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 11:09pm
You know that his whole pure, golden age formula is quintessential Ayn Rand... which he bragged not to have read. She's intellectually superior as well as braver. Larry can't handle her atheist conclusions, which she would quickly identify as pseudo libertarianism.
"Ayn Rand was an atheist and outspokenly anti-Christian"
Posted by winyahn at 10/28/2008 @ 11:21pm
Obama's lead in Rasmussen down to 3 today in Rasmussen. It's 2 points in Gallup traditional. State polls lag by at least a week, so we won't get an accurate read before election day. Despite widespread misinformation in the media, people are starting to realize that Obama is a full blown socialist, and rejecting the kool-aid. It'll be interesting to see if Americans can be fooled into electing a socialist this year.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 08:48am
If he goes broke, surely your church will respond with a box of food & everything will be alright! Make sure he understands that under no circumstances is he to is he to approach the govt for help! Remember the Prince of Peace said something about caring for the least among us & I know that you will point to the fact that no explicit guidelines are laid out as to just HOW MUCH we should care. On second thought just give him directions to the nearest employment agency & forget the box of food.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 8:32pm
Taking care of the needy is precisely where most of our efforts and finances go to. Both here and overseas.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:39am
And to the "I'm no socialist" preacher's California cost of living.
Posted by winyahn at 10/29/2008 @ 4:38pm
There is a way McCain might yet win.
He wants the government's footprint reduced. It has become too central and powerful. He wants to shrink Washington, nudge it back to the periphery of the country, reduce the giant octopus with tentacles everywhere, to a guppy splashing in the Potomac.
Ironically, even under conservative administrations, the imperial presidency, far from being limited, has grown stronger with ever more govt, bigger budgets and higher debt.
Because even conservative politician, once they win office, want their power maximized, not reduced.
The solution may be a truly radical administration willing to lift the country out of its right of center groove in order to set it down on lefty tracks. Such an effort will provoke a showdown with middle America, one which, depending on the severity of the White House challenge may well end up reducing the power of the Oval Office and of Washington itself.
A somewhat strange prognosis in a time when the need for substantial govt intrusion into the financial system is undeniable. But it is precisely the likelihood that an Obama administration will be encouraged by this crisis to use it as a lever to reorient the country that such a clash with Middle America is in the cards. If putting the country on new tracks was not the goal to begin with, that certainly will be the goal now and the more seriously that effort is pursued the more severe will be the c0untry's reprisal against the White House and Washington.
These speculations contain plenty of wishful thinking, but I think the possibility is real. How big a possibility, how real? That will depend on the force and extent of the effort to impose a lefty solution on America.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/30/2008 @ 03:24am
Taking care of the needy is precisely where most of our efforts and finances go to. Both here and overseas.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:39am
i call "Horsesh!t" our military expenditure trump all other efforts combined, financially and ideologically. how is killing hundreds of thousands and absolutely screwing the economy to pay for it helping anyone? how is encouraging job outsourcing by massive tax breaks helping the needy? how is refusing to raise the minimum wage to compensate for cost of living increase helping the needy? i refuse to believe you are really that f-ing blind. deliberately and willfully deceitful? that i would believe.
Posted by skawtee at 10/31/2008 @ 12:09pm